Editorial | Review the jury system

Making justice equal to all Jamaicans is a work in progress. Impatience with the slow advancement of that ideal has caused various sectors of society to clamour for criminal justice reform. Concerns range from access to bail, the lack of jurors, to the quality of police investigation. Clearly, it’s not about fixing just one problem. The system is beset by problems.

For example, the problem with jury service has persisted over many years. This is a topic we have addressed in the past because, under our Constitution, a person charged with a serious crime is entitled to be tried by an impartial jury chosen from a wide cross section of the community.

The issue comes into sharp focus at the beginning of each Circuit term. The dwindling number of persons responding to the summonses indicates how difficult it has become to bring justice closer to the people it seeks to serve. The response rate is hovering around three per cent.

“It is part and parcel of the deterioration of people’s awareness of what it means to be a citizen in this country. This era of self-gratification and me, myself and I, perhaps, it is part of the casualty of what is happening,” said Director of Public Prosecutions Paula Llewellyn as she made the case for a public education campaign about the responsibilities of citizenship.

Under the Jury Duty Act, any Jamaican, living in the country between ages 18 and 70, who is on the voter’s list or tax roll, is eligible to be selected for jury duty. At the same time, various persons such as attorneys, teachers, doctors, nurses, politicians and civil servants are exempt from serving. The low turnout of jurors has persisted for a number of years and, in extreme cases, trials have been interrupted or aborted for lack of jurors to try cases.

AMENDED

The Jury Duty Act was amended in 2015 as the administration tried to grapple with the shortage of jurors. By that act, changes included reducing the number of jurors required to try certain categories of cases, and slashing the number of exemptions for service.

Remarkably, what has not been addressed is the conditions of service. Proper physical amenities and relative comfort should be guaranteed for anyone expected to spend at least five hours listening to and digesting evidence, often of a complex nature. The service of summonses ought to be properly supervised. Persons who refuse to serve without a valid excuse made in writing should be brought before the courts and fined. But that is part of the enforcement weakness that is so evident in Jamaica. We enact laws and simply leave them to percolate.

Jury reform has a much steeper climb than has been achieved so far. The Court Administration Division of the Ministry of Justice would have noted the shabby facilities which jurors share at the various courts. Based on their observations, they have made recommendations for reform, including raising the daily allowance to jurors. Then, the recent statements by Justice Minister Delroy Chuck suggesting that he was not eager to widen the pool of prospective jurors, give the impression that he is content with the status quo. His utterances betray no hint that he is about to make bold new strides towards creating a more efficient and effective system.

Taking all of the above into consideration, it is now urgent that the country candidly confront these deficiencies in the justice system. We suggest that the jury system is a good place to begin.

NATIONAL DISCUSSION

There needs to be a national discussion on the future of the jury system: Should we strengthen and keep it? Abandon it? Make it optional for the accused person to choose? Indeed, discussions about jury trial versus bench trial have already begun. Some prominent voices have already lined up on either side.

Juries have been around in ancient Greece since the fifth century, though the modern-day jury system emerged in 12th-century England. King Henry II is credited with creating the first juries by appointing groups of 12 “lawful and fair” men to decide on land disputes. As the British Empire went about its colonisation blitz, it brought along its justice system.

Some countries have since abandoned the jury system as they argue that juries are biased and can be manipulated, or influenced by media, particularly social media, and often yield to emotions instead of heeding the facts. And, in any event, they do not understand complex cases.

Those arguments prompted common-law jurisdictions such as Singapore, India, Pakistan and Malaysia to abolish jury trials. There is already a body of information articulating both the benefits and risks of each system and the powers that be could well use these arguments in any study of the current system.

In the final analysis, it is imperative to strengthen court management and the administration of justice to afford equal access to all Jamaicans, for this is critical to put a dent into poverty and rampant criminality.